Cited by 67Evaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Assessment and PedagogyHigher Education Research Studies

Reviewing affective, behavioural and cognitive learning gains in higher education

Open access
Rogaten, Jekaterina, Rienties, Bart, Sharpe, Rhona, Cross, Simon, Whitelock, Denise, Lygo-Baker, Simon, Littlejohn, Allison·2019·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

The notion of learning gains has increasingly become apparent within the higher education literature and is gaining traction in government policies in the US and UK, reflecting a desire to “quantify” the impact of university study and teaching excellence in particular. Given the increased policy focus on learning gains, it is essential that researchers and policy makers are informed about common used approaches to measure learning gains, and their expected range and magnitude. Therefore, a systematic literature search was undertaken. 52 studies (n = 41,009) were coded into affective, behavioural and/or cognitive learning gains. The review found a rich but diverse variety of adopted methodologies and approaches to “measure” affective, behavioural and cognitive (ABC) learning gains. Nonetheless, there is a lack of consistency in the ways in which learning gains are currently measured and reported. These inconsistencies and limitations hamper effective comparisons of learning gains and teaching excellence. We recommend a greater emphasis on longitudinal measurement of learning gains using validated approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2018.1504277

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a lack of in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences in learning gains across different contexts, which raises new questions regarding how to meaningfully and practically assess cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning gains.

    “However, there is a lack of in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences in learning gains across different contexts, which raises new questions regarding how to meaningfully and practically assess cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning gains (22–24).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogaten, J., Rienties, B., Sharpe, R., Cross, S., Whitelock, D., Lygo-Baker, S., & Littlejohn, A.
Affiliations
  • The Open University (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of Surrey, United Kingdom
Corresponding author
Rienties, Bart
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2018-10-30
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
321-337
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2885013639
Cited by
67
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
FWCI
13.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of the Arts London Research Online (University of the Arts London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
learning gains, measurement of learning outcomes, teaching excellence, higher education policy, longitudinal assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review